Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
> Shooting Weddings with film. |
*** Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks *** |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Shooting Weddings with film.
Hi, just seeking advice and opinions really. Back in the 80's and early 90's I was a regular wedding photographer, having a wedding to capture almost every weekend from April to November. At that time I was doing all processing and printing myself - mainly colour and the odd few mono.
I recently had an inkling to get back into this as I miss it quite a lot, so my question is; how feasible do you all think it would be to cover weddings using M.F. film in this day and age? Is their still a place for such a thing? I really don't want to take the D route as I would not enjoy the experience, and I'm mainly thinking of this for the pleasure. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
I think it's very feasible and if I were going to do this (which I'm not) I would only use film.
I would do it the way my father did it for forty years which was: Take photographs; Send film to lab who provide proofs; Put proofs in album for bride and groom; Collect orders for re-prints; Get lab to make prints. No tedious computer based post processing which most digital wedding photographers seem to take hours doing. I have done two weddings myself for friends and I did them both with a Mamiya RB67, 50mm, 90mm and 180mm lenses and a Vivitar 285 flash with a reflector. If I was doing it professionally I would use the same equipment but buy backups for some items. Obviously this method does not produce the thousands of images on a DVD which people are expecting these days but I think with a bit of clever marketing people could be sold on the idea of higher quality, lower quantity images. My own wedding album has about 60 prints in it. I certainly wouldn't want any more. Steve. Last edited by Steve Smith; 8th April 2010 at 11:54 AM. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I have never done weddings, except once for a friend, but I can see no reason why you should not use film, as long as you have a quick processing facility near by for the color, as far as I can see you should not be slower than a digi user,they seem to take hours sitting in front of their computers getting it right,Richard
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I was just a little concerned about the amount of images any clients would be expecting. A lot of wedding photographers seem to be offering images in the mid to high hundreds.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
When I got married a few years back a mate of mine shot some photos on 35mm provia, everyone else was using digital. Guess who's photos have the most pleasing colours, sharpest shots, best skintones, nicest overall look?
On the other hand every man and his dog is setting themselves up as "professional" wedding photographer these days just because they've spent a grand on a DSLR and think they can get better skintones than 100+ years of photographic emulsion development just because they read a magazine article about using Lightroom to process RAW. A lot that I've seen still manage to get horribly burnt out wedding dresses. I think shooting film would certainly give the message that you know what you're doing more than digital, to me at least. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
If you are hand printing yourself then why not. But if you are sending to a lab to dev and print then they will scan to print so you may just as well use digital. At least you can post process and do your own cropping before the lab do what they do.
No one needs or really wants an album of more than 50 prints. 30 is often enough for some weddings. Its only the spray and pray brigade who do hundreds of images and can't be bothered to edit them down. How many of those hundreds do you rekon are really keepers. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I think it very feasible. You have two "edges" on the run of the mill wedding photog of these days. One, film and two, MF. A wedding photog with a MF camera these days has to stand out and it looks professional even to non photographers. They are after all getting something different.
If the turn around time for the digi photographers at my son's wedding is anything to go by then I'd have no worries on film turnaround time if you have a good lab. I'd even be tempted to bring along a 35mm camera loaded with B&W. You might be surprised at the demand for genuine silver gelatin B&W prints. If you take a limited number of B&W negs then once you have printed the best at 5x7 and have nailed down exposure, contrast, cropping etc then reproductions are relatively quick. How do I know? Well I took along my own 35mm camera as the happy go lucky amateur with Fuji Neopan 400 and later in the day and evening some D3200. Close family on groom and bride's sides received prints( mostly 5x7 but some 8x10 and all were gratefully received,usually with comments along the lines of: "I do like to see B&W prints of weddings" What was unsaid but implied,I think, amongst the parents and family on both sides and other relatives of a similar age was that it reminded them of their wedding pics when B&W was the norm. Mike |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Mike, if I was to go ahead then I'd certainly be offering black and white - but also in M.F. I have 6 backs for my SQA so it wouldn't be a problem to load some up with black and white film. As for the printing; I would have the lab D&P to 5x5 as proofs in colour and I would do the album prints myself. The black and white I would do all myself including proofs. That's the way I used to do it and it worked well, as I found the only way I could get the result I had in my head was to print myself.
In those days I used to shoot 4 rolls (48 shots) and guarantee 45 proofs. The finished album would then contain either 20 or 30 prints of the clients choosing. I just feel that these days clients are going to want a lot more proofs than that. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Fred. Sounds "sorted" as Phil Mitchell would say. You can only try it out explaining to clients that this is what they get. Once they see the quality, you might be surprised how quickly the myth that more is better gets destroyed.
Mike |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
I agree with Mike's observations. I too arranged a "Pro Wedding Photographer" for my daughters wedding, who was very good. I was able to wander around the fringes with the M2 and Tri-X and shot, for me, a leisurely day. The demand for the results was surprising once the families saw them.
I am regularly asked if I would shoot friends weddings and always decline, too many expectations I am not sure I can match. I do always take a camera and shoot from the sidelines and offer prints and they are always received well. The most common comment is "these look timeless" and I think this is maybe the key. If you need some inspiration check out Riccis Valladares, I mentioned him on my Blog a couple of days ago. I think another problem is that the happy couple do not want to be swamped with a cd/dvd/web site with 100-200 images to choose from and trying to judge something crowded round a computer screen! Last edited by MPerson; 9th April 2010 at 06:16 AM. |
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dent Shooting Gloves | kennethcooke | New products and offers | 0 | 24th December 2009 12:39 AM |